Muizen Posted January 20, 2012 Share #1 Posted January 20, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am thinking about buying a 21mm f2.8 Biogon T* ZM that will cost including a hood approx. €1.200 or less. The new Leica Super Elmar 21mm f3.4 is priced at €2.245. I wonder whether the Leica Super Elmar which is not as fast as the Biogon, would be a better investment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2012 Posted January 20, 2012 Hi Muizen, Take a look here Leica Super Elmar 21mm f3.4 versus 21mm f2.8 Biogon T*ZM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
TomB_tx Posted January 20, 2012 Share #2 Posted January 20, 2012 "Better investment" depends on what return you want. If it is resale value, the Leica will do better, but will tie up more funds until you sell it. I've never sold a Leica lens, so resale doesn't matter to me. My "ROI" is in enjoyment in use, and only you can determine what that is worth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2012 Share #3 Posted January 21, 2012 Umm... Do you buy a lens for its monetary qualities or for its optical ones? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muizen Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share #4 Posted January 21, 2012 Umm... Do you buy a lens for its monetary qualities or for its optical ones? When I ask: I wonder whether the Leica Super Elmar which is not as fast as the Biogon, would be a better investment?" this is not just about money but about whether spending a lot more for the Leica also brings a lot more optical value. I feel that this is quite normal to ask because it is too simple to consider the highest priced product always as the best product! I just like to know whether the Leica Super Elmar is indeed a far better lens than the Biogon! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 21, 2012 Share #5 Posted January 21, 2012 No it isn't far better than a Biogon. But as any product gets closer to perfection it costs disproportionately more to make. A $40 Timex will tell the time just as accurately as a $10,000 Jaeger LeCoultre. In this case if the Biogon is 9/10 the Elmar is 10/10. But whether people can make photographs that rely on the last tenth to make the difference is open to question, what did they do before the Super Elmar for instance, a Biogon was perfectly OK then wasn't it. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2012 Share #6 Posted January 21, 2012 I meant to say that that is a personal assessment. Like all things the last percent of quality tends to multiply the price, so " a lot more optical value " as related to the price is not quantifiable. Is the Noctilux' extra optical value over the Summilux really worth the vast price differential? To me not, to many others easily. I find the Zeiss an CV offerings quite satisfactory in 21 or 75 mm lenses and would never spend Leica money. For the simple reason that I have no affinity with the focal lengths and hardly use them. But when I had to decide to go with Zeiss and Leica for my new 18 I tried out both and decided to go with the Super Elmar, despite the fact that the Zeiss was nearly as good for a far lower price. Because the difference was worth the money - to me. Interestngly the ratio changes with time. In the past I was a staunch fan of the Summilux 75, but now I only have a CV for my M8. Is this not what this whole Leica thing is about? If we were in it for " bang for the buck" reasons we would not even be considering Leica. When I ask: I wonder whether the Leica Super Elmar which is not as fast as the Biogon, would be a better investment?" this is not just about money but about whether spending a lot more for the Leica also brings a lot more optical value.I feel that this is quite normal to ask because it is too simple to consider the highest priced product always as the best product! I just like to know whether the Leica Super Elmar is indeed a far better lens than the Biogon! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hydeca Posted January 21, 2012 Share #7 Posted January 21, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) If we were in it for " bang for the buck" reasons we would not even be considering Leica. The Biogon 21 ergonomics are horrible, its noticeably softer than any of my Leica glass so for this focal length Leica gives better bang for the buck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2012 Share #8 Posted January 21, 2012 Proves my point, doesn't it ? The Biogon is, by all accounts, a darn good lens - but for you the Leica is better, so to you it is easily worth the price. But I am sure your images would be 99% of what you are taking now were you to use the Biogon. So objectively the Leica makes little sense. If mile for the buck were a motive criterium we would all be driving a Toyota Prius - but we don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hydeca Posted January 21, 2012 Share #9 Posted January 21, 2012 9/10 vs 10/10 is valid optically, but ergonomically 3/10 vs 10/10 would be more accurate... all those sharp edges... the barely visible blue dot... the front cap is crap... its bad enough to put you off Zeiss for life. Never cheap out on glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted January 21, 2012 Share #10 Posted January 21, 2012 9/10 vs 10/10 is valid optically, but ergonomically 3/10 vs 10/10 would be more accurate... all those sharp edges... the barely visible blue dot... the front cap is crap... its bad enough to put you off Zeiss for life. Never cheap out on glass. I don't like the sharp edges, the mini-blue dot or the front cap either.... But it doesn't really affect my experience with the lens that much. The lens does focus smoothly and the aperture clicks nicely and it takes nice images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 21, 2012 Share #11 Posted January 21, 2012 I can't speak of the Biogon T* 2,8/21 ZM, but it's neighbor, the Biogon T* 2,8/25 ZM is an absolutely stunning lens optically. The 21 should be about the same or a tiny bit less so. What you get with the Leica lens is way better build mechanically and of course, 6-bit coding. The built-in camera corrections also work better since they're actually tuned for Leica lenses - though the corrections when applied to ZMs work really well also (I have no complaints). You could resell either lens and get back pretty much what you paid for it, so as an "investment" (or experiment) they're both pretty safe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hydeca Posted January 21, 2012 Share #12 Posted January 21, 2012 You could resell either lens and get back pretty much what you paid for it, so as an "investment" (or experiment) they're both pretty safe. It will be interesting to see how much the Biogon 21 will fetch s/hand compared to the Summarit 50 that never gets used and should also be sold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 21, 2012 Share #13 Posted January 21, 2012 Never cheap out on glass. Some people have the spare intellectual capacity to decide on the look they want rather than simply buying the most expensive lens. Anyway, show us an example of why the most expensive lens really pays off in your case and I'll be much further along the path to believing you. Post it in the Photo Forum perhaps? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted January 21, 2012 Share #14 Posted January 21, 2012 I recovered nearly all my purchase price when I sold my Zeiss 21/2.8 Biogon. It is a very nice lens, but is bigger and heavier than the 21/3.4 Super Elmar M. The half stop difference in speed has made no difference in my photographs, as this is an extremely easy lens to hand hold at slow speeds. I did not find that the Zeiss rendered "softer" images that the Leica, but they do handle color slightly differently. The Leica has less finder blockage if you don't plan to use an external VF. The 6-bit coding, construction, and lens hood of the Leica are simply outstanding. The Zeiss hood is also very nice, but must be purchased separately, and the hand coded "marker pen" 6-bit codes that I applied tended to wear off. Unfortunately this would sometime happen without my noticing, and the camera would not recognize the lens or apply corrections. My fault for not manually setting this, but honestly I enjoy having one less setting to worry about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 21, 2012 Share #15 Posted January 21, 2012 but must be purchased separately, and the hand coded "marker pen" 6-bit codes that I applied tended to wear off. Unfortunately this would sometime happen without my noticing, and the camera would not recognize the lens or apply corrections. My fault for not manually setting this, but honestly I enjoy having one less setting to worry about. Yes they would wear off for older 21mm Biogon lenses, but if the OP wants to buy a new Biogon they have a groove machined into the mount to allow permanent coding, so it is no disadvantage at all to buy a Biogon. Make your own coding template , one dab of black paint and its done for life or until you want to try another code. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2012 Share #16 Posted January 21, 2012 It will be interesting to see how much the Biogon 21 will fetch s/hand compared to the Summarit 50 that never gets used and should also be sold I sold mine for the price that I paid for it new. But I bought it at an amazingly good price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hydeca Posted January 22, 2012 Share #17 Posted January 22, 2012 Some people have the spare intellectual capacity to decide on the look they want rather than simply buying the most expensive lens. The image quality of the Biogon is fine; the ergonomics suck. Its encouraging to read people are recovering costs when selling them. I bought my favourite lens (a 'cron 50) second hand, in mint condition and for less than any of my other Leica lenses. It has nothing to do with intellectual capacity or buying the most expensive lens. Either you like a lens or you don't, and not being able to try a Biogon out a B&H order was the only option. People have different sensitivities; mine include a hatred of sharp edges and flimsy components. In retrospect the Elmar would have been better bang for the buck as I would use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 22, 2012 Share #18 Posted January 22, 2012 People have different sensitivities; mine include a hatred of sharp edges and flimsy components. In retrospect the Elmar would have been better bang for the buck as I would use it. Having a number of Leica (and other) lenses to compare with, both old and new, I can only assume it is my particular Biogon that is well made and works efficiently, with very smooth and perfectly weighted focusing and a positive aperture ring with nice click stops. I can't find any more sharp edges on it than my 1998 50mm Summicron, or indeed my 1939 5cm Elmar, but I suppose if you say so all the other Biogon's must be badly made and falling apart and sending people to the casualty department with deep cuts to the hands. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 22, 2012 Share #19 Posted January 22, 2012 It sounds like the one I used to own, Steve. I sold mine to Ben L. and he appears to be more than happy with it too. Afaik he, like I, still has all his fingers attached to his hands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 22, 2012 Share #20 Posted January 22, 2012 Some people have the spare intellectual capacity to decide on the look they want rather than simply buying the most expensive lens. Anyway, show us an example of why the most expensive lens really pays off in your case and I'll be much further along the path to believing you. Post it in the Photo Forum perhaps? Steve To me the 50 asph really pays of! http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/181149-i-live-wonderful-place.html I can't say the same of the SE 21mm. Not yet. Maybe in time. It's to soon to decide. My zeiss biogon 21mm didn't pay of either. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/179715-superstars-maastricht.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/179714-girl-cant-help.html My Leica 2,8/28 i'll never sell. It's serving me for 15 years now. In the 28mm region: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/173345-mamma-mia.html , I would never buy a zeiss. In the 21mm ... Well maybe.. I trade the SE 21mm one day for a 2,8 biogon . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.